Vanderkarr v. Vanderkarr
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration stated that the defendant by his deed, dated 25th April, 1810, granted, bargained, and sold to the plaintiff, all the undivided part of lot No. 120. in Van SchaicFs patent, containing, 120 acres, &c. to have and to hold, See.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration stated that the defendant by his deed, dated 25th April, 1810, granted, bargained, and sold to the plaintiff, all the undivided part of lot No. 120. in Van SchaicFs patent, containing, 120 acres, &c. to have and to hold, See. And covenanted, the premises, &c. to the plaintiff and his heirs and assigns, “ against all and every person or Persons lawfully claiming, or to claim, the whole or any part of the premises, &c. to warrant and defend.” The plaintiff ** x alleged, 1. That the defendant, at the time of the sealing and delivering of the deed,…
1Per curiam
The breaches assigned in the declaration are not warranted by the covenant. The only express covenant set out is a general warranty. And it is a well settled rule that all implied covenants are done away by express ones. (2 Caines’ Rep. 192.) It is unnecessary, therefore, to notice the general words in the deed; although they certainly imply no covenant of seisin. Under'the general covenant of warranty, the breaches assigned are, want of seisin, and that there is no such land as that described in the deed; neither of these are *123within the covenant. The former can only be properly assigned,…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Marston v. HobbsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Burr v. . StentonNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- McDonough & Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- Roebuck v. DupreySupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Hosack's Executors v. RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1840
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.